The Die Off

[there4eyeM]

If humans are not conservative regarding their environment, they are going to poison themselves to death. If humans do not liberalized the strangle hold of materialism, and particularly mere economic materialism, they will die off surely.

 

[toobfreak]

The entire population can fit in the State of Rhode Island shoulder to shoulder, so yea, it is a myth.

And all our resources would last forever if we just stopped eating and breathing. And if we stood all the people one straight atop of the other, we could fit everyone into an area the size of a phone booth. Might not even need a shuttle to get to the Moon. Just climb up erveryone's shoulders. And if everyone started eating nothing but 500 calories of lettuce a day, we could do away with cattle and beef. Wow, dude, you just threw all of your credibility right out the window! You people really think that just because you can maybe physically FIT 40 billion people on this planet, our resources, society, ecology, economy and infrastructure can all support them?

 

[westwall]

The entire population can fit in the State of Rhode Island shoulder to shoulder, so yea, it is a myth.

And all our resources would last forever if we just stopped eating and breathing. And if we stood all the people one straight atop of the other, we could fit everyone into an area the size of a phone booth. Might not even need a shuttle to get to the Moon. Just climb up erveryone's shoulders. And if everyone started eating nothing but 500 calories of lettuce a day, we could do away with cattle and beef. Wow, dude, you just threw all of your credibility right out the window! You people really think that just because you can maybe physically FIT 40 billion people on this planet, our resources, society, ecology, economy and infrastructure can all support them?

No, the point we were making is most people have no idea how small the physical footprint is for human beings. Yes, when you look at the cities we build it is a much larger footprint, but even with those added in, our footprint is still quite small. The only resource that is provably limited is coal. That we know is no longer being produced (though lignite still is) oil is possibly a limited resource, we currently don't know. The original theory of how oil is created has been legitimately challenged by Dr. Golds abiotic oil theory.

Yes, he only found a little oil....but he found it where current theory states it is impossible to find it. Natural gas is likewise possibly abiotic in origin. There certainly are no critters living on Jupiter or Neptune and they have gigatons of methane. So there is a real world analog for the theory. The rest of mans resources are all renewable. You are merely exchanging one form of carbon for another in an endless cycle.

 

[westwall]

If humans are not conservative regarding their environment, they are going to poison themselves to death. If humans do not liberalized the strangle hold of materialism, and particularly mere economic materialism, they will die off surely.

Materialism is what has driven mankind to the point where we now have the ability to stave off that which absolutely can end our civilization, or in the worst case, our very lives, and that is an asteroid strike. No creature that has ever existed on this planet can make that claim, and in one case we know of, it almost ended us. Pollution absolutely is a problem. But it is a manageable one.

 

[Crick]

So all the threats to humanity can be sorted into two categories: asteroid strikes and everything else. That's a handily simplifying way to look at the world.

 

[westwall]

So all the threats to humanity can be sorted into two categories: asteroid strikes and everything else. That's a handily simplifying way to look at the world.

As soon as you can define a threat to humanity feel free to do so. Warmth is not a threat. A nuclear winter, that is a threat. An asteroid strike, that is a threat. A global pandemic, that is a threat. All of those have analogs, or historical evidence as having actually happened in the past. The one thing that has no historical support is the claim that a warm world is a bad one.

 

[Crick]

Are you ready to relocate 650 million people by the year 2100? Deal with the death of the virtually all the world's coral reefs? Crop failures of all variety? Water shortages? Weather extremes?

Yeah, not a threat.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Are you ready to relocate 650 million people by the year 2100? Deal with the death of the virtually all the world's coral reefs? Crop failures of all variety? Water shortages? Weather extremes?

Yeah, not a threat.

If we spend $70 trillion on "green energy" we won't have to worry about those things?

 

[skookerasbil]

If humans are not conservative regarding their environment, they are going to poison themselves to death. If humans do not liberalized the strangle hold of materialism, and particularly mere economic materialism, they will die off surely.

Like I said to somebody else earlier in this thread, when you have real responsibilities in life you don't worry about st00pid shit like this. That's why people show little interest in climate change....they have waaasaay too many real things to worry about in life.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

There is no such thing as a "highly advanced climate change computer model". They do not exist.

Have you studied the exact parameters of this particular model on exo-civilizations? Then it is hard to say how right or wrong it is, nevertheless, it comes to one very valid conclusion: the dangers of overpopulation and the role it creates in ravaging resources and long-term viability of the people. Is there a better model? Is this the best we have so far? If yes, and I think so, then it IS high-advanced since there is nothing out there more advanced than it. Many places around the globe are already at the point where their populations are unsustainable and many people are starving, dying or moving.

No, I haven't, but I can tell you that no one in the field is capable of building a complex Model. They simply aren't. Computer models, when developed by the right people can be useful instruments, but those models are incredibly expensive to buy, and operate, think tens of millions of dollars. That's why I can guarantee you that this model is not "highly advanced".

But let's ignore that subject for just a moment and look at actual demographic studies. Their endeavors tell us that the global population will peak at around 9 billion, we are already seeing a massive slowdown in global birth rate. In the 1960's the birth rate was 2.61 to 1. Now it is below 1.6 and that includes the Third World. Thus demographers are now calculating that after peaking at 9 billion, the global population will then fall back to around 6 billion and level off at that point.

Still well below the carrying capacity of this Earth of ours.

Hope you're right in what you're saying about birth rates and demographic studies. I've seen some estimates that say the carrying capacity is somewhat lower than 9 billion, and if we blow through that then there could be serious consequences.

The problem with computer models for climate change and anything else is that you write the algorithms and determine the parameters and write the code, debug it, and test it out, and then you present your findings to whoever is paying for it. They take one look and say that ain't right, change it so that the result is what I want it to be.

One other thing, the planet will do just fine thank you, it's mankind that is could have a big problem.

The carrying capacity WITHOUT technological advance is 11 to 12 billion. Right now thirty three percent of all the food produced globally, is wasted. It is allowed to rot, or is lost in transit etc. Add to the losses the corruption of governments that use food to control their populations and just with what we have now, we can support 10 billion. Get rid of the waste, and simplify the production and transport, and we would get an increase to allow the 11 to 12 billion. Add technology to the mix and the low estimate is 20 billion, the high estimate is 40 billion.

These are well thought out and reasoned numbers. They have been working on the data sets for decades, their methodology is well proven, and accepted.

You are correct about the computer models. They are only as good as the people writing them, and the people writing the global climate models are terrible at best.

The people writing climate and civilization models are terrible at best, but those who theorize the Earth can "carry" 40 billion are well proven and accepted? PLEEEEEEEZE.

Your theories about what the Earth can carry if only we can eliminate waste from food handling, "fix" government to be more efficient and altruistic and optimize this or that technology are just that: THEORY. GUESSES. They are no better rooted in fact than any of the other theories and models you lambast. The very nature of government precludes efficiency. Whole populations are already on the brink of catastrophe. Resources and ecosystems are stretched to the limit. Mankind will not change until nature FORCES him to change by pulling the plug on his ability to overpopulate the planet. The only question then as the models ask are: will mankind level off and survive or not.

Tolerance Is Toxic

Only the inferior races are doomed, which is as it should be. It is suicidal to do anything to save them; therefore, feralphiles have a Death Wish.

 

[skookerasbil]

Are you ready to relocate 650 million people by the year 2100? Deal with the death of the virtually all the world's coral reefs? Crop failures of all variety? Water shortages? Weather extremes?

Yeah, not a threat.

Most people don't get hysterical about things imagined....only the climate k00ks do. People have been listening to the environmental radicals throwing bombs for decades..... to virtually zero affect. Might as well be posting that you've successfully eradicated the fungus on your big toe.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Don't muddy the waters? That is the topic of the thread! If you read the book rather than just *****, whine and dismiss, you'll understand that the model has the best underlying data to go by, our own civilization and our own planet. If we want to understand how another planet LIKE EARTH might fare with another civilization LIKE US, with the variable being how we address the issues of resource utilization and population growth, I can't think of a better place to start.

UNDOUBTEDLY, unchecked, humanity faces a major crisis within the next 100 years that will decide our long term survival.

demographers have an actual track history of being good predictors of population, and population trends. Climatologists have an exceptionally poor record of predictions. So bad that well known charlatan sylvia browne, of psychic fame, had a better record. Far better in point of fact. Demographers actually use real numbers. Numbers that have been VERIFIED. Climatologists don't.

The models that the climatologists use ignore vast amounts of real data to support their theories. They always have. They have also ignored vast amounts of real historical fact, that is readily available, because the historical fact refutes their pet theories. They claim that warmth is bad. Historical fact tells us that that belief is false. All of the great periods of mans history, his development of culture, and science, and philosophy, have ALL come when the world was warmer than it is now. Every single one of mans major advances has happened when he was able to bask in the warmth of a warmer planet. This is simple historical fact that the climatologists have tried to hide.

Yes, yes, yes, I know all that. But how do you know that the demographics, real numbers, real historical fact, et al, are not all part of the predictive model being relied upon in this man's book? His model is about US, people, civilization as much as it is about the planet. As to warmer periods being times of greatest cultural advancement, no one knows that better than me, it is a part of the historical record.

Man's entire modern civilization has been built upon the warming that followed the Younger Dryas cooling, and especially since the last 5,000 years, beginning with Sumeria, the Iron Age, the Roman Republic, the Greeks, right into the Medieval Warm Period and the Renaissance, Common Law, the Ottoman Empire, and the great enlightenment beginning in the 18th century. Ironically, some of our worst events such as the Black Death, the Great Famine, and the Plague all centered around the Little Ice Age between the 14th and 17th centuries! In all cases, both plants and animals flourish better in a warmer climate than they do a cooler one.

Because any model that predicts mans destruction because of warmth is provably wrong. The scientific method is very consistent. One of the fundamental principles of science is called Uniformitarianism. That which is happening today, happened in the past, and operated the same back then, as it does now. Waves, and how they interact with beeches is well known. That is how they have ALWAYS worked. The same holds for any natural phenomena that you wish to point to. It is only in the field of climatology that all of a sudden the world no longer operates by well known principles.

We KNOW that the Medieval Warming Period happened, and we KNOW that the global temperature was at least 1.5 degrees C warmer then, then they are today. We Know this. We also KNOW that it was a global event. There are over 100 peer reviewed papers that describe the warming, its extent, and its duration, for both the northern and southern hemispheres. It is only the climatologists who claim that the MWP was somehow, magically, limited to the European region. They have no way to explain how a hot bubble of air was somehow anchored to a spinning globe, for hundreds of years, but that is their claim.

Whenever I see one of these claims I merely refer back to the historical record and ask if the claim is plausible based on what we actually KNOW occurred. No claim, as this man has made, has ever passed that simple test.

All fine and good but I do not know that the author in the OP ever claimed that the Earth was going to warm or that its warming would lead to his destruction.

What was the scientific value from this 100% modeling exercise?

Motto of Postmodern Science: "If It's Weird, It's Wise"

It is valuable for nerdy freak scientists to get funding this way so they can continue to indulge in addictive escapism.

 

[there4eyeM]

Have you studied the exact parameters of this particular model on exo-civilizations? Then it is hard to say how right or wrong it is, nevertheless, it comes to one very valid conclusion: the dangers of overpopulation and the role it creates in ravaging resources and long-term viability of the people. Is there a better model? Is this the best we have so far? If yes, and I think so, then it IS high-advanced since there is nothing out there more advanced than it. Many places around the globe are already at the point where their populations are unsustainable and many people are starving, dying or moving.

No, I haven't, but I can tell you that no one in the field is capable of building a complex Model. They simply aren't. Computer models, when developed by the right people can be useful instruments, but those models are incredibly expensive to buy, and operate, think tens of millions of dollars. That's why I can guarantee you that this model is not "highly advanced".

But let's ignore that subject for just a moment and look at actual demographic studies. Their endeavors tell us that the global population will peak at around 9 billion, we are already seeing a massive slowdown in global birth rate. In the 1960's the birth rate was 2.61 to 1. Now it is below 1.6 and that includes the Third World. Thus demographers are now calculating that after peaking at 9 billion, the global population will then fall back to around 6 billion and level off at that point.

Still well below the carrying capacity of this Earth of ours.

Hope you're right in what you're saying about birth rates and demographic studies. I've seen some estimates that say the carrying capacity is somewhat lower than 9 billion, and if we blow through that then there could be serious consequences.

The problem with computer models for climate change and anything else is that you write the algorithms and determine the parameters and write the code, debug it, and test it out, and then you present your findings to whoever is paying for it. They take one look and say that ain't right, change it so that the result is what I want it to be.

One other thing, the planet will do just fine thank you, it's mankind that is could have a big problem.

The carrying capacity WITHOUT technological advance is 11 to 12 billion. Right now thirty three percent of all the food produced globally, is wasted. It is allowed to rot, or is lost in transit etc. Add to the losses the corruption of governments that use food to control their populations and just with what we have now, we can support 10 billion. Get rid of the waste, and simplify the production and transport, and we would get an increase to allow the 11 to 12 billion. Add technology to the mix and the low estimate is 20 billion, the high estimate is 40 billion.

These are well thought out and reasoned numbers. They have been working on the data sets for decades, their methodology is well proven, and accepted.

You are correct about the computer models. They are only as good as the people writing them, and the people writing the global climate models are terrible at best.

The people writing climate and civilization models are terrible at best, but those who theorize the Earth can "carry" 40 billion are well proven and accepted? PLEEEEEEEZE.

Your theories about what the Earth can carry if only we can eliminate waste from food handling, "fix" government to be more efficient and altruistic and optimize this or that technology are just that: THEORY. GUESSES. They are no better rooted in fact than any of the other theories and models you lambast. The very nature of government precludes efficiency. Whole populations are already on the brink of catastrophe. Resources and ecosystems are stretched to the limit. Mankind will not change until nature FORCES him to change by pulling the plug on his ability to overpopulate the planet. The only question then as the models ask are: will mankind level off and survive or not.

Tolerance Is Toxic

Only the inferior races are doomed, which is as it should be. It is suicidal to do anything to save them; therefore, feralphiles have a Death Wish.

Do you know when you will be leaving?

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

If humans are not conservative regarding their environment, they are going to poison themselves to death. If humans do not liberalized the strangle hold of materialism, and particularly mere economic materialism, they will die off surely.

The Unabomber Betrayed His High IQ Because of the Lack of Material Rewards From It

Scientists aren't greedy enough. If they would demand and get 50% of the value of corporate patents on the billion-dollar products that only they can create, such an incentive would motivate scientific production that would make today's devices look primitive.

 

[westwall]

Are you ready to relocate 650 million people by the year 2100? Deal with the death of the virtually all the world's coral reefs? Crop failures of all variety? Water shortages? Weather extremes?

Yeah, not a threat.

Yes. Now, more than at any time in history mankind is capable of dealing with catastrophes. Look up "the Great Dying of Men" sometime if you want to read about a terrible storm. Here's a hint....it happened looong before mankind was industrialized.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Are you ready to relocate 650 million people by the year 2100? Deal with the death of the virtually all the world's coral reefs? Crop failures of all variety? Water shortages? Weather extremes?

Yeah, not a threat.

Yes. Now, more than at any time in history mankind is capable of dealing with catastrophes. Look up "the Great Dying of Men" sometime if you want to read about a terrible storm. Here's a hint....it happened looong before mankind was industrialized.

He has IGNORED my two posts about Corals in another thread, that had survived far worse weather/climate effects than what they face today:

Post 65 then 66

He rather follow a bunch of unverified models over past reality.

 

[there4eyeM]

Biology, nature, whatever one wishes to call it, overpopulation prefaces a catastrophic die-off in every case. Only intelligence can overcome this, and it isn't continuing as we are.
We aren't dealing with facts or anything else more solid than opinion now in this thread. Some are optimistic, some pessimistic and then the rest of us. This poster sees nothing more to contribute, so, 'bonne continuation'.

 

[westwall]

Are you ready to relocate 650 million people by the year 2100? Deal with the death of the virtually all the world's coral reefs? Crop failures of all variety? Water shortages? Weather extremes?

Yeah, not a threat.

Yes. Now, more than at any time in history mankind is capable of dealing with catastrophes. Look up "the Great Dying of Men" sometime if you want to read about a terrible storm. Here's a hint....it happened looong before mankind was industrialized.

He has IGNORED my two posts about Corals in another thread, that had survived far worse weather/climate effects than what they face today:

Post 65 then 66

He rather follow a bunch of unverified models over past reality.

crick is as dishonest as they come. No amount of factual evidence will ever sway his opinion. He is a fanatic in every respect. That is the way of these threads though, the warmists post some "oh my God the world is ending" link, which one of us who actually understand science will then look into, and so far, there has always been a different cause for the impending doom from that which they claim.

 

[westwall]

Biology, nature, whatever one wishes to call it, overpopulation prefaces a catastrophic die-off in every case. Only intelligence can overcome this, and it isn't continuing as we are.
We aren't dealing with facts or anything else more solid than opinion now in this thread. Some are optimistic, some pessimistic and then the rest of us. This poster sees nothing more to contribute, so, 'bonne continuation'.

You are wrong. We can do nothing and the global population will fall. Paul ehrlich claimed back in the 1960's that by the 1980's billions of people would die from starvation. He was wrong. In fact I can't find a single prediction he ever made that came to pass. He was obummers science czar. How can anyone choose someone with such a spectacular record of failure to "advise" you? The only reason to do so is because they hold the same political opinions and goals as you do.

 

[SSDD]

let me see...

all parameters were hypothesized thus inherent biases are the norm...

conjecture in = conjecture out...

Just like the rest of climate science.....these wack jobs don't see a problem with this sort of thinking. They have become so accustomed to it, that they think this is what science looks like.